Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

community.roku.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 233 posts

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#161

Post by garbagecoder »

pixl97 wrote: post #155
JohnFen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would you make everything gratuitously complicated by having two separate forms of addressing? If it ain't broke, don't fix it? If IPv6 brings no benefit to my LAN, why should I spend all the effort needed to shift it to IPv6? I can just make the connection to the internet IPv6 and leave everything else alone. Although I have additional friction in my case, in that I have numerous devices that are IPv4-only. So…

Because that's not the way TCP was designed in the first place. Instead you're used to hack on top of hack to make IPv4 not explode in a ball of flame there are far more billions of end points than IP addresses. The thing is you really don't realize how shit your network experiences are because of this. Everyone is just attempting to tunnel more services via HTTP/HTTPS and the particular fun problems that entails rat…

If I don't realize how shit it is, I don't think it's a shit experience. I don't care how it was designed and what you call a "byzantine hack" I call a feature that saved the Internet about 20-25 years ago. Having everyone on a public addressable host is not good. (Yes, I know you can do this on IPv6, but then it's like you're just applying Byzantine hacks to get the security feature you already had on IPv4.)

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#162

Post by winstonprivacy »

zamadatix wrote: post #138
ArchOversight wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adoption has been declining for years. Source? > Many devices don't support it. Source? > Many services seemingly support it but break in strange ways. Got any examples? > And not to mention it's a subtle and yet powerful privacy attack vector. This is the only statement you've made that has any merit, and even then very little. Privacy Addresses have been a thing for a while, and most OS's support it. No longer ar…

Taking some points from their side not because I necessarily agree with the conclusion but just because this comment comes off a little strong: Adoption hasn't been declining by any measure but the adoption rate isn't as high as it was 5 years ago. Of course eventually the rate has to slow down because there is less and less to change over so that doesn't mean much. Overall though adoption has continued to increase w…

> Many devices don't support it is probably one I consider true though. It's getting way better as the years go on but it's fair to say the world isn't past IPv4 only devices in households by any measure. Typically embedded products are the worst. Home security stuff, point of sale gear, older or just crappy media devices, oddly some IoT type devices like a fridge. Plenty of gear also supports it but just very poorly. Of those that do not all understand NAT64 either so while they may support IPv6 but they don't necessarily work without IPv4 (this also getting better as more services move to supporting IPv6 too).

This is very much the case. I used to compile statistics about various devices for our network gateway. ipv6 support was very hit or miss and was the root cause of many spurious support tickets.

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#164

Post by icedchai »

zamadatix wrote: post #125
znpy wrote: post #35

The amount of idiocy and ignorance around ipv6 is crazy. I’ve seen many supposedly senior engineers that claimed they didn’t want to implement ipv6 because anyone could connect to hosts from “outside”. Nat has become so engraved in people’s thinking that they can’t even understand the actual role of a firewall anymore. We’re going to see many stories like this, where networking incompetence will start costing pretty…

On the flip side I'm so regularly impressed by what random HNers know about networking (particularly due to containers) I sometimes wonder if there is a point in me being a network guy! I think a large part of the general attitude is IPv6 is a topic everyone is exposed to but few have really been expected to know so there is a lot of strong feelings about how it's crazy compared to the thing they've already spent 20…

I remember the early Internet, before NAT. Everyone had public IPs everywhere. Most universities had public IPs on the desktop (and dorm room.) My home network was a /24 with no NAT. NAT was supposed to be the exception, not the rule.

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#165

Post by scarface74 »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #130
ehPReth wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> via selling user’s television watching behavior Gross. I hate how commonplace this is becoming. Even your basic non-Roku-OS TV people are saying never to connect it to the internet as it'll just fingerprint stuff on your HDMI and tell advertisers you're watching Game of Thrones

I used to think like that, then I realised that my life is not actually being made worse because of it. The TV doesn’t know who I am, personally (I’m not signed-in to any accounts) and it’s all just mass aggregate data that will probably end-up being ignored by network-execs so why worry?

My issue with Roku is that advertising makes it a bad product.

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#166

Post by garbagecoder »

yamtaddle wrote: post #92
phpisthebest wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cant wait until all the printers, and webcams all showup on the public internet again....

Portscanning for smb shares and webcams, LOL. Good times. Found entire offices routing their whole network publicly, back then, shared network drives and printers right there for use by anyone who stumbled on them. It was nuts. Worms spread like crazy. It was a real mess, and that's with the Internet being way the fuck friendlier than it is now.

What's ironic is that the IPv6 people will tell you you can do all of that with IPv6. Which is true, but if we NEED TO CHANGE because we're out of addresses then why go to something that doesn't use the address space?

The problem IPv6 seeks to address has mostly been engineered around for now.

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#167

Post by Symbiote »

phpisthebest wrote: post #100
JohnFen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry I do not trust the likes of home router vendors to implement a linux firewall correctly Neither do I, but that's a fixable situation. Get an appliance router that lets you put DD-WRT (or similar) on it. Or use a computer instead of an appliance and set it up any way you like.

I am by trade a network administrator, and I run enterprise gear in my home. I am not running a home router or dd-wrt. But I am not a typlical user going down to best buy to pick up the latest Belkin or Asus wireless AP / router combo they have on sale for $99 and hooking it up to my internet using default "wizard" settings from the mobile app... Nor I am I trusting Comcast, or ATT to configure their residental rente…

Large ISPs like Comcast already have enormous IPv6 networks, and have appropriate, default-deny firewall configurations for them.

I'm only familiar with the largest ISPs in Britain, but they also have default-deny configurations on the IPv6 routers they supply. Obviously.

> Grandma / Sally

Try avoiding the casual ageism and sexism.

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#168

Post by KerrAvon »

phpisthebest wrote: post #100
JohnFen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry I do not trust the likes of home router vendors to implement a linux firewall correctly Neither do I, but that's a fixable situation. Get an appliance router that lets you put DD-WRT (or similar) on it. Or use a computer instead of an appliance and set it up any way you like.

I am by trade a network administrator, and I run enterprise gear in my home. I am not running a home router or dd-wrt. But I am not a typlical user going down to best buy to pick up the latest Belkin or Asus wireless AP / router combo they have on sale for $99 and hooking it up to my internet using default "wizard" settings from the mobile app... Nor I am I trusting Comcast, or ATT to configure their residental rente…

If I’m following your logic, you’re saying you trust tplink etc to keep Grandma safe, but only for IPv4, and not IPv6? Why?

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#169

Post by JohnFen »

digitalsushi wrote: post #147
JohnFen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There remains the problem that we've run out of IPv4 addresses. I agree that IPv6 was not the ideal solution to this, but it's the only solution we have.

I'm going to ask this and it's going to sound accusatory but I insist it's innocent: what is a more ideal solution than what we have?

I don't know, it's not my specialty, not an issue I've spent any time researching, and the ideal solution depends on the requirements that are trying to be met. I also don't know what all those requirements are.

IPv6 is obviously addressing many requirement beyond IP space exhaustion, though. When I speak of an "ideal solution", I'm speaking about just addressing that issue.

Even if I had a perfect solution at the ready, it wouldn't matter. We have to work with standards, and the adopted standard is IPv6. So it's the only solution we have available.

Re: Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs

#170

Post by maherbeg »

xxpor wrote: post #116
vetinari wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people might have more than one subnet. Or road-warrior VPN and VPN-ing in. It is nice when your networks name resolution works, even if you are outside your network.

If you have multiple subnets, you almost certainly have an advanced enough router that it supports mDNS forwarding. There's no reason why it can't work across a VPN either.

mDNS forwarding doesn't work on Tailscale :(
Post reply on HN